Tank simulation in AA

[Mahatma 0]

Hi.I have been playing OFP since it's release,and there is one thing that anoys me in it:When shoting with-say a m1a1-on a t80,the damage model does not take into account (Very much anyhow...) distance.The damage is the same if you are 1000m away,or if its 100m.The damage model is bland too:it does not matter where on the tank it's hit,the "power bar" goes down until either something is red and does not function,or if its destroyed.

I would like to see a more realistic approach where distance,and where on the tank matters.As an infantry simulation it's excellent. And probably the best multi-player game I've played.I especially like the option of making MP maps,and the coop feature which is so sadly missing from almost every game released

I'm eagerly awaiting the new game

[Fork122 0]

Hmmm, this threads probably going to get closed. We're not supposed to put suggestions in the ArmA forum.

Quote[/b] ]Please do not post suggestion/request/demand regarding Armed Assault. The reason for it is that BIS is certainly not able to bring even a substantial fraction of features suggested here. Also, it seems most people are posting the same suggestions which are already posted in OFP2 forums, leading to duplication and confusion.

We certainly do not want to discourage our members from discussing the possible features, but making requests at this stage seems to be a bit late for Armed Assault. Please remember that this is an improved OFP, not a pre-alpha of a new game.

No suggestion/request/demand thread

But I think we can expect to have a more realistic damage system for armor and everything else. If the buildings can be reduced to a pile of rubble, I have a feeling the whole damage sytem will be improved.

Welcome to the BI Forums

[Guest The Cobra]

Though he have extremely right...

Even at point-blank you'll still need 6 sabots to destroy an M1A1...

In OFP that is

[tankieboy 0]

At point-blank you will do no damage with SABOT.

In real life that is.

[Guest The Cobra]

Comments withdrawn

[tankieboy 0]

YOU DEAF?

Nice post edit btw.

[Guest The Cobra]

Comments withdrawn

[tankieboy 0]

You find out what SABOT means and answer your own question.

Do not insult me either.

[Guest The Cobra]

Comments withdrawn

[tankieboy 0]

Jesus wept...

Here is a clue.

[Guest The Cobra]

NO!

Explain, I'm still not getting...

The pic didn't help... At all...

As I have understood this, Sabots are for Sabotage, that will make minimum damage and still make the tank unmobile..?

Or..?

[tankieboy 0]

A lightweight carrier in which a projectile of a smaller caliber is centered so as to permit firing the projectile within a larger-caliber weapon. The carrier fills the bore of the weapon from which the projectile is fired; it is normally discarded a short distance from the muzzle.

Here

Need I go on? Or just tell you that I served on tanks for ten years?

[Guest The Cobra]

Bahh...

You win...

[tankieboy 0]

I had no doubt that I would.

Ta.

For some strange reason you have deleted your posts?

[Guest The Cobra]

For some strange reason you have deleted your posts?

In what way do you find that strange?

BTW; Pffft...

[Messiah 2]

Need I go on? Or just tell you that I served on tanks for ten years?

This is the first time, and probally the last time i see fit to use this word...

Owned

[Jezz 0]

apfsds is amunition type you mean sabot is the thing that makes the dart fit in the gun barrel which when it leaves the gun it splits apart letting Dart continue on its way to the target. hence the name armour piercing fin stabalised discarding sabot (apfsds) thats my understanding if it anit correct someone feel free to correct me

i really do hope they improve the armour system and get rid of the current hit point system where damage adds up allowing you to kill tanks with grenades

[tankieboy 0]

Correct.

Its time to move on from an Infantry sim and include other classes with game play values.

[Mahatma 0]

Have anyone here managed to kill a tank with handgrenades in OFP? lol

How did you manage it?

[Jezz 0]

t-72 throwing them over a wall and bmps using m203

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Basically the sabot relies entirely on its velocity to do any damage at all, I mean after all its just a pointy metal rod

[mahlkav 0]

Have anyone here managed to kill a tank with handgrenades in OFP? lol

How did you manage it?

Ammotruck and loads of running

Oh, sorry, that was an M2A2... nvm...

[Friedchiken 0]

Basically the sabot relies entirely on its velocity to do any damage at all, I mean after all it's just a pointy metal rod

From what little I know, its a radioactive uranium dart.

Sometimes I wonder if its feasible/practical to stop using depleted uranium in weapons, though I guess that is an environmental topic discussed somewhere else.

[shinRaiden 0]

oh, boy, flame wars anew.

No, the minimal - but still detectable - radioactivity of the depleted uranium is irrelevant. Some types of carbon in trees is radioactive, that's how we guess the age of ancient things. If you are paranoid about radioactivity affecting you, well guess what, even cosmic neutrino particles penetrate 10's of meters of rock. Have you ever been to the dentist for a routine tooth x-ray? Ever broken a bone or had some other reason for having an x-ray? How about MRI's? That's all radiation. Now of course you don't want to eat uranium dust, but any reports on the precise nuclear construction of the depleted uranium used is probably restricted information. The name 'depleted' refers to the fact that most - but not all - the radioactivity is gone due to halflife decay. It's like asbestos, safe to be around, but you don't want to breathe much of the dust.

The important part is Uranium has the best density/strength for commonly attainable mineral for use in bullets. Lead has lots of density, but is very soft. It's an arguement very similar to FMJ vs hollowpoint, in that FMJ rounds have a harder metal jacket over the lead core to improve penetration prior to mushrooming. If you used strictly lead sabots on tank ammo, not only would you end up with lead warts on the side of the target instead of a hole, the heat and wieght of the shell would cause deformations leading to diminished ballistics capability.

Now for the on-topic discussion.

Where do you draw the line on simulation complexity? Right now, we have selections in models that you can return where the tank was hit. That's about as detailed as the engine supports directly. Everything else ever implemented is script magic.

For 'true' tank simulation, you'd want to start with functionality like a solid modeler like the USARL's recently OSS'd BL-CAD. You need much more detailed component selections, material density parameters, durability parameters, structural coef's for layered composites vs. cast ceramics, destructable values for reactive armor, flammability levels, in short all the RL params and methods to simulate them that the military uses in RL.

With that capability, do you think it could legally ever be used in more than a restricted-markets private VBS module?

A practical alternative would be to simply flag the selections whether they're vulnerable to small arms fire or not. Obviously this does not accurately support the scenario of some wingnut tossing a prybar in the tracks to try and throw them, or running up behind and lobbing a molotov cocktail down the tail pipe. But seriously, what's the level of practical implementation/limitation you're willing to work with?

[Scrub 0]

Quote[/b] ]shinRaiden Posted on Aug. 08 2005,02:54

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But seriously, what's the level of practical implementation/limitation you're willing to work with?

Sheesh! Your provocative preamble added deleteriously to the informational strife this thread is being subjected to…(e.g. I believe you knowingly went off the deep end     )

How about an armor rating that a unit has, that simply divides the damage dealt until the penetration value is met by a type of weapon that is better than the defense. That way a 'scratch' could at least be made in a tank by medium caliber arms, but all the worlds 5.56 rounds couldn't touch it.

bland example, not trying to add any realistic values:

-1972's m60 glacis section=  armor rating (AR) 50, hitpoints (HP) 20

-Class 4 hard armor vest w/ceramic insert= AR 3, HP 4

-Plain Kevlar = AR 1, HP 2

-5.56 round = armor penetration (AP) 2, damage factor (2+random(1))  - minimum damage 2 max 3

In use the 5.56 round (close range) would severly damage the Class 4 without penetrating it (until degradation), due to the differences in AP and AR.  However, the m60's front section would have no real damage inflicted. The Plain Kevlar would be penetrated, but the damage inflicted would be lower by 2, due to the HP's of the vest.

Just something I remembered from some strategy board games I played as a kid.  It worked well, and also had a bit of unpredictability due to the small difference in the 'min/max' damage of the weapon.  Was quite interesting.

My two Sacagewa's